Maintenance Function's Performance Evaluation Using Adapted Balanced Scorecard Model
Maintenance Function's Performance Evaluation Using Adapted Balanced Scorecard Model
Maintenance Function's Performance Evaluation Using Adapted Balanced Scorecard Model
International Scholarly and Scientific Research & Innovation 3(10) 2009 1255 scholar.waset.org/1307-6892/4804
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology
International Journal of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering
Vol:3, No:10, 2009
section that has the lowest efficiency will be the focus of The second step is the performance evaluation using
performance measurement, so we will know the value of adapted balanced scorecard model. From the section with
its actual performance and some recommendations can be the lowest relative efficiency, will be applied an Adapted
given to improve its performance. Balanced Scorecard model to asses the contribution of
The calculation of relative efficiency of each maintenance function to company’s overall performance.
maintenance section is done by using Data Envelopment This model is used to generate maintenance performance
Analysis method. Data Envelopment Analysis is a non indicators. Every indicator generated is validated by
parametric approach based on linier programming. This company’s top management. By using Analytic Hierarchy
method is used to calculate relative efficiency by Method, the weights of every indicator will be
weighting each input and output each Decision Making determined. Then, Objective Matrix will be used to asses
Unit (DMU) from the data. DMU is something that is actual performance of maintenance section analyzed
being calculated its efficiency. For this research, the compared to company’s target. Importance-performance
DMUs are maintenance section in production department matrix is used to determine indicators which have high
and other support department. Then, the result of this priority but sill indicate low performances.
calculation is used to determine the actual performance
value of department with lowest relative efficiency.
III. RESULTS
International Science Index, Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering Vol:3, No:10, 2009 waset.org/Publication/4804
II. METHODOLOGY
A. Determination of Maintenance Section with Lowest
This research is divided into two parts. First, we Relative Efficiency using Data Envelopment Analysis
determine which maintenance section has lowest relative There are three maintenance section analyzed in this
efficiency using Data Envelopment Analysis. Formulation research, i.e.: utility and husky sidel (HS), glass drinking
of Data Envelopment Analysis for this research is as water, and bottle drinking water. Calculations of relative
follows: efficiency every maintenance section is done by using
2
∑u o
Data Envelopment Analysis method and counted for
Max Eb = i ib every period (months). Data are taken for six month, input
i =1 for this model are numbers of maintenance crew, numbers
5
∑v
of supervisor, backlog hours, actual work hours, and
Subject to j x jb = 1 manpower utilization, and output data for this model are
j =1
work hours on time and percentage work hours on time.
2 5
In this case, these data are considered to be enough in
∑ ui yib − ∑ v j x jb ≤ 0 for b = 1, ... , n
i =1 j =1
analyzing the relative efficiency. The calculation results
are showed in Table 1.
u i ≥ 0 and v j ≥ 0 From Table 1, we can conclude that Utility and
Husky Sidel has the lowest average efficiency from the
With,
six months period compared to the other section. This
n = number of maintenance section under analysis
section will be the focus of our study, and we will
u1 = weight of output work hours on time measure the overall performance of this section.
u2 = weight of output percentage work hours on time TABLE I
v1 = weight of input maintenance crew number RELATIVE EFFICIENCY MEASUREMENT OF EACH MAINTENANCE
SECTION
v2 = weight of input supervisor number
Month Maintenance Section
v3 = weight of input actual work hours
Utility and
Glass Bottle
v 4 = weight of input backlog hours Husky Sidel
Jan 0.8480 1 1
v5 = weight of input manpower utilization
Feb 1 0.7870 1
o1b = output work hours on time for DMU-b Mar 1 1 1
Apr 1 1 1
o2b = output percentage work hours on time for DMU-b
May 1 1 1
x1b = input maintenance crew number for DMU-b June 0.8066 0.9297 1
Average
x 2b = input supervisor number for DMU-b Eff.
0.9424 0.9527 1.0000
International Scholarly and Scientific Research & Innovation 3(10) 2009 1256 scholar.waset.org/1307-6892/4804
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology
International Journal of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering
Vol:3, No:10, 2009
management, are 20 MPIs. MPIs in this research are Fig. 1. Hierarchy of Validated Maintenance Performance
shown in Table 2, and hierarchy of validated MPIs is Indicators
shown in Fig.1.
The next step is weighting each indicator. This step is
TABLE I done with the help of Super Decision 1.6.0 software. The
ADAPTED BALANCED SCORECARD MODEL MPI
value of each indicator’s weight is taken from
questionnaires filled by the top management. Perspective
Perspective Indicators
with the highest priority is consumer perspective. It means
Growth and Number of staff training that the maintenance activity must give high attention to
innovation Number of new ideas generated by staff the requirements and specification specified by the
Staff productivity rate
costumers.
From the maintenance performance measurement
Maintenance Schedule completion effectiveness done, we get the calculation of the company’s actual
Staff efficiency ratio performance in the period January to July 2008 is 4.4526.
Preventive maintenance efficiency ratio This means that the company’s performance shows
moderate performance. But it still needs some
Maintenance work efficiency
improvement so the company can reach better
Equipment uptime performance in the long term.
Backlog hours
IV. DISCUSSION
Production Availability
Performance The development process of balanced scorecard for
Quality maintenance function of the company is trying to translate
Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) each of the company’s strategy into company’s objectives
and strategic measures adjusted with company’s point of
Planning Index
view and mission. A scorecard made should explain
Total Overall Equipment Effectiveness (TOEE) company’s strategy in maintenance activity through
Environment Number of work accident causal measures.
Costumers Costumer’s complain rate The need of balance of each different indicator will
result in short-term improvement, so that it can not be in
Work lateness rate
contradiction with the long-term improvement. The most
Financial Maintenance cost every period important thing is, that the causal relationship each
Return on investment (ROI) indicators in a balanced scorecard must be linked with
company’s financial objectives as the last goal.
The clear identification and the reached balance
between indicators can be seen in a causal relationship
diagram shown in fig. 2.
International Scholarly and Scientific Research & Innovation 3(10) 2009 1257 scholar.waset.org/1307-6892/4804
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology
International Journal of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering
Vol:3, No:10, 2009
V. CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
Fig. 2. Cause Effect Relationship Between Indicators in
[1] I. Alsyouf, “Measuring Maintenance Performance Using A
Adapted Balanced Scorecard Model
Balanced Scorecard Approach,” Journal of Quality in Maintenance
Eng., vol.12 no 2 pp. 133-149. 2006.
To determine the critical maintenance indicator [2] S. Blumenberg, “Benchmarking Financial Processes with Data
(indicator with high priority but low performance), we use Envelopment Analysis,” International Journal of Quality and
importance-performance matrix. The importance Reliability Management.
[3] A. Charnes, et.al, “A Developmental Study of Data Envelopment
performance matrix of each indicator is shown in fig.3. Analysis in Measuring the Efficiency of Maintenance Units in The
Importance is represented by total priority weight. U.S. Air Forces,” Research Report CCS 460. Texas: Center for
Meanwhile, performance is represented by actual value of Cybernetic Studies University of Texas. 1984
[4] A.S. Corder, Maintenance Management Techniques, New York:
each indicator.
McGraw Hill Book Company, 1988.
From the importance performance matrix above, we [5] K. Dervitsiotis. 1981. Operational Managements. New York:
can conclude that there are three indicators in that McGraw Hill Book Company.
category, i.e.: costumers’ complain rate, work lateness [6] I.R Ferdian and R.N. Purwatoro. 2006. Pengukuran Kinerja Bank
Syariah: Integrasi Pendekatan DEA dengan Analisis Rasio
rate, and Return on Investment. Some recommendations Keuangan. Usahawan No. 10 Tahun XXXV.
are suggested to achieve better performance in the future [7] A. Garg, and S.G. Deshmukh. 2006. Maintenance management:
evaluation. literature review and directions. Journal of Quality in Maintenance
Engineering. Vol. 12 No. 3, 2006 pp. 205-238.
[8] V. Gasperz, 1998. Manajemen Produktivitas Total: Strategi
Peningkatan Produktivitas Bisnis Total. Jakarta: PT Gramedia
Pustaka Utama.
[9] V. Gasperz, 2003. Sistem Manajemen Kinerja Terintegrasi:
Balanced Scorecard dengan Six Sigma untuk Organisasi Bisnis
dan Pemerintah. Jakarta: PT Gramedia Pustaka Utama.
[10] K.S. Ghebrit, 2004. Productivity Measurement, Dissertation of
Pretoria University.
[11] K.M.A Al Harbi, 2000. Optimization of Staff Numbers in The
Process Industries: An Application of DEA. International Journal
of Manpower. Vol 21 no 1 pp 47-59.
[12] A. Parida, 2003. Development of Multi-criteria Hierarchical
Framework for Maintenance Performance Measurement:
Concepts, Issues and Challenges. Doctoral Thesis of Luleå
University of Technology.
[13] N.M. Paz and W. Leigh. 1993. Maintenance Scheduling: Issues,
Results, and Research Needs. International Journal of Operations
& Production Management. Vol. 14 No. 8, 1994, pp. 47-69.
[14] J. Riggs, J and G. Felix. 1983. Productivity Measurement by
Objectives. National Productivity Review.
Fig. 3. Importance Performance Matrix
International Scholarly and Scientific Research & Innovation 3(10) 2009 1258 scholar.waset.org/1307-6892/4804
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology
International Journal of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering
Vol:3, No:10, 2009
[15] T.L. Saaty, 1994. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York:
McGraw Hill Company.
[16] R. Simons and A. Davila, 2000. Performance Measurement &
Control System for Implementing Strategy. New Jersey: Prentice
Hall.
[17] E. Siswadi and R.N. Purwatoro, Paradigma Baru Pengukuran
Efisiensi Kinerja Relatif Berbasis Pendekatan Matematik.
Usahawan No.6 Tahun XXXIV. 2005.
[18] Steering Committee for Review of Commonwealth/State Sevice
Provision. 1997. Data Envelopment Analysis: A Technique for
Measuring the Efficiency of Government Service Delivery.
Canberra: AGPS.
[19] D.J. Sumanth, 1984. Productivity Engineering and Management.
New York: McGraw Hill Book Company.
[20] Sutarman and W. Katon. 2003. Perencanaan Kebutuhan Dan
Pengadaan Material Pesawat Telepon Tipe Pte 991 N-3. Jurnal
Teknik Industri Vol 5 No.4 Universitas Pasundan.
[21] A.H.C. Tsang, “Measuring Maintenance Performance: A Holistic
Approach.” International Journal of Operations and Production
Management. Vol. 19 no 7 pp. 691-715. 1999.
[22] T. Wireman, Developing Performance Indicators for Managing
International Science Index, Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering Vol:3, No:10, 2009 waset.org/Publication/4804
International Scholarly and Scientific Research & Innovation 3(10) 2009 1259 scholar.waset.org/1307-6892/4804